The concluding chapter reconsiders certain important assumptions about anti-ʿAlid sentiment; namely, that it was limited to the early Umayyads andKhawārij, and that it played no role in shaping Sunnī theology. Instead, this literary excavation reveals strong indications of an enduring legacy that continued to shape medieval and contemporary Sunnī views about ʿAlī. This chapter also discusses the methods that Sunnīs used to transform ʿAlī from a villainous character to a righteous one. It compares canonical ḥadīth with parallel recensions in other works to argue that Sunnī writers actively engaged in the process of rehabilitating ʿAlī by censoring, reinterpreting, and emending texts that portrayed him negatively and by circulating counterclaims that exalted him. Scholars also selectively appropriated anti-ʿAlid reports to modulate ʿAlī’s image. They tempered the pro-ʿAlid (and Shīʿī) portrayal of ʿAlī as an impeccable saint through reports which portrayed him as sinful or frequently mistaken. On the whole, we can consider Sunnī efforts to construct an image of ʿAlī that differed from both Shīʿī and anti-ʿAlid views to have been successful.

This chapter begins with a discussion of the different reactions toward criticism of ḥadīth found in the Ṣaḥīḥayn. Is there a consensus on the authenticity of the Ṣaḥīḥayn or have they always been open to re-examination? Next, I analyze Albānī’s ḥadīth methodology and the criticism he attracted. One would imagine that Albānī was a very strict and cautious ḥadīth scholar, but much of the criticism he received was due to leniency in his methodology. In particular, he was often criticized for using abridged versions of ḥadīth manuals to make decisions. Finally, the chapter ends by looking at the impact Albānī had on modern ḥadīth studies. In the 1960s it was not common practice for scholars to cite the ḥadīth they quoted or even note their level of authenticity. However, after Albānī we find that many authors, even his critics, started grading each ḥadīth. The most important result was that a generation of university students tried to evaluate any ḥadīth they would use in their dissertations.

Eliminating the use of weak ḥadīth has been a common call of Salafism. Salafis rejected the use of weak ḥadīth because they were incompatible with their core commitment to textual authenticity. Salafis believed weak ḥadīth to be the source of many superstitions, fictitious beliefs, and many erroneous legal verdicts found in the madhhabs. They hold that the use of weak ḥadīth betrays the scholarly responsibility to preserve Islamic teachings in their pure form. On the other hand, Traditionalists allowed the limited use of weak ḥadīth and insisted that they play an important role in Islamic interpretation. The different stances reflect the various priorities of both groups as well as their contrasting conceptions of truth. Their differences also stem from their different perceptions of the social and ideological consequences of using weak ḥadīth. This chapter ends with an analysis of Albānī’s controversial project of dividing the Sunan and the responses it garnered from Traditionalists.